DNV has been collaborating in a joint industry project, in order to evaluate fuel technology options and energy-efficiency measures.
Namely, the Roadmap towards a Zero-Emission Vessel project centres on a defined concept for two newbuild tankers (the “case ships”) of 2020 vintage.
As explained, the two vessels investigated in the JIP are:
- An MR (about 39k dwt), trading short voyages mainly in Europe.
- An LR2 (about 115k dwt), trading worldwide.
For the record, other participants in the project are Deltamarin Ltd as ship designer, Minerva Marine Inc. as vessel manager, and energy company Total as a charterer. All four companies have high ambitions when it comes to solving the decarbonization challenge by 2050.
The JIP focused on quantifying the financial and environmental performance of selected fuel alternatives and technologies, while define realistic carbon-robust pathways for the MR and LR2 case ships.
The project’s report discusses other practical considerations, such as class and regulatory requirements, but only qualitatively. Fuel consumption for the MR and the LR2 is based on simulating the case ships’ operating profiles as if they were in Minerva Marine’s fleet and built to Deltamarin’s designs.
The study factors in speed distribution, propulsion requirements, main-engine fuel consumption/specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC), energy losses, engine maker’s tolerance and other fuel characteristics.
A range of fuel and technology options (21 of them) have been evaluated for two specific vessels – an MR and an LR2 – considering design and environmental and financial performance.
While the detailed findings are confidential, the key message for today’s newbuilds is that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is currently the most cost-attractive fuel and fuel technology option available for GHG emissions abatement.
…DNV continued.
Based on the total cost of ownership (TCO) and reduction of CO2-eq. TtW emissions, the assessed measures have been sorted into three main groups, as shown in the figure below:
- Alternative fossil fuels and other measures: These measures reduce CO2-eq. emissions by up to 20%, at a relatively low cost. Measures found in this category include alternative fossil fuels like LNG, LPG and methanol, and other emissions abatement technologies such as shore power, the use of hydrogen in port, solar panels and rotor sails.
- CCS and drop-in fuels: Using on-board carbon capture and storage can create large CO2 emissions reductions (40–60%) at a relatively low cost. Even higher emissions reductions than what is estimated in this study can be achieved with on-board CSS, but this is associated with a higher cost. Drop-in fuels such as biofuels would allow emissions savings in line with the percentage of incorporation of these low-carbon alternatives in the fuel mix.
- Low-carbon fuels: Only low-carbon fuels have the potential to reduce emissions by close to 100%. This, however, is at a high cost compared to conventional VLSFO-driven vessels. A large part of this cost is associated with increased fuel expenditure.
On the environmental side, the main takeaways are:
- For fuels widely available today, LNG has the lowest well-to-wake CO2-eq. emissions.
- Energy-efficiency measures (wind, solar, hydrogen in port, cold ironing) could reduce emissions by 15–20%.
- Beyond 2035–2040, with today’s technologies, alternative low-carbon fuels will be needed to meet IMO carbon-intensity reduction ambitions.
On the financial side:
- LNG and energy efficiency technologies such as rotor sails reduce GHG emissions significantly – up to 20% for LNG – while at the same time being commercially attractive.
- Abating CO2-eq. emissions with alternative low-carbon fuels comes at a cost. The additional cost ranges vary widely but can be substantial and depend on fuel-price developments.
To meet IMO’s ambition to reduce GHG emissions by 50% (vs. 2008) by 2050, alternative low-carbon fuels will play a major role. There is no clear winner among these fuels and all options come with uncertainties, be it technical, safety or availability.
…DNV added.
Therefore, fuel transition pathways should be planned to prepare the transition to future low-carbon fuels while today implementing greener solutions that are already available. Such pathways could involve drop-in fuels or preparing designs for easier future retrofit.
Watch the main findings of the JIP here
